Yep. I don't really know the answer. The lakes were built to provide hydropower. Over the years, much cheaper forms of electricity have come along. Because of that, the hydro side has lost 2 million a year and GBRA has said that they cannot take money from the water supply side to pay for maintenance of those dams because then the large water supply customers would sue, and they should. Why should those water supply customers pay to maintain some unrelated dams?
Over the same time frame, people moved onto property adjacent to the lakes. Those people came to rely and use the lakes but didn't pay a single dime for maintaining them, they just assumed they would always be there. Now that the lakes aren't there, or some of them are soon not to be there, they are mad. But they didn't pay a single dime for those lakes, they just got the benefit of living next to them. Sucks about their home values, but I have a friend who owns *looks at comal appraisal district* a 1/4 acre lot between 2nd and 3rd crossing on the Guadalupe. Beautiful view of the hills on the other side, shitty tubing in front (wide spot in the river, it's shallow), doesn't flood afaik. Has a "house" built in 1959 but the CAD says it's "POOR" and that's being generous. It has no plumbing, the roof has holes, it's really just a shelter. The value of the place is $128k (I need to talk to my friend, his family should be able to lock in their taxes because the owner is over 65).
1/4 acre on river front, no structure to speak of, 128k.
Their values are going to go down, but those that have land adjacent to the natural channel of the Guadalupe will be fine. They won't be able to boat on GBRA's lake anymore, but there will always be people waiting to buy a riverfront lot.